Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reason Magazine)   The media is not going to let a lack of facts about the Batman shooter prevent them from forwarding their own agenda   (reason.com) divider line 126
    More: Obvious, Batman, political agenda, Jared Loughner, Occupy Wall Street, violent video games, Louie Gohmert, Northeastern University, Pat Brown  
•       •       •

9643 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jul 2012 at 11:17 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



126 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-23 11:42:57 AM  

Al_Ed: I say we need more laws restricting explosives!


Someone just needs to make breaking the law, against the law.
 
2012-07-23 11:43:35 AM  

umad: Moosecakes: Call murderous psychopath a democrat/liberal first, ask questions later.

And if that fails, just say that really their philosophies were more liberal, like the nazis who were liberal too.

Yep. You're the victim here. Funny how you guys can dish it out but can't take it.


I'm not a victim of anything I'm a guy sitting at my desk.

If you're referring to that crap about the tea party guy, I'm not happy about that either. The news needs to check their facts. But they don't keep pushing the crap after the fact.

Jumping to report erroneous information at the start is one thing. Continuing to push conspiracy theories about how someone with NO political motivation did something because they're liberal is another thing entirely, and it's what sites like hotair, breitbart, and all these others do every time something like this happens
 
2012-07-23 11:44:13 AM  

Al_Ed: Tat'dGreaser: salvador.hardin: Notice that of those three options we have mountains of restrictions and regulations in place in our attempts to prevent people from exercising two of them.

Yet he still found a way to get explosives. Despite them being illegal. It's almost as if people who want to break the law will actually break the law.

I say we need more laws restricting explosives!


Fark that. Why don't we have laws that make it illegal to kill people? That would have stopped this senseless tragedy from happening in the first place.
 
2012-07-23 11:44:21 AM  
STOCK PHOTO OBSERVATION (AKA Thread Jack)

I noticed one of these stock photos used above with a "Welcome to Fark" overlay. Then I found this whole set of stock photos, individually (of course), across a variety of anti-bullying blogs.

www.hhdev.psu.edu
www.mymcpl.org
angercoach.com
world.edu

First observation: They all take turns being bullies

Second observation: Pants don't fit as well after looking at these. Am I the only one?

Third observation: I have too much time on my hands. And now this gooey stuff.
 
2012-07-23 11:44:56 AM  

cirby: In the 1960s and 1970s, "progressives" decided that the asylums they'd built were a bad idea, so they started "mainstreaming" the crazy people. That meant giving them drugs, sending them out into the world, and hoping they'd take the drugs (that they mostly didn't like taking, so they'd throw the drugs away as soon as they walked out the door). You can see the results on street corners in most major cities. Some of the high-functioning lunatics are, well, making news.


Ronald Reagan: Progressive Hero
 
2012-07-23 11:45:41 AM  

cirby: HotWingConspiracy:
Fact: Crazy motherfarkers are allowed to own arsenals walk around without restrictions.

For most of history, crazy people were either thrown out of most communities (if they were poor) or locked away in dark rooms (if they were rich). That meant most of the really crazy people were vagabonds, or as we call them nowadays, "homeless."

A century or so back, "progressives" got the government to build a bunch of asylums, where they locked away the crazy people, since they couldn't actually treat them worth a damn. It kept the worst of the crazies off the streets, and gave the early psych doctors someone to perform stupid and cruel experiments on.

In the 1960s and 1970s, "progressives" decided that the asylums they'd built were a bad idea, so they started "mainstreaming" the crazy people. That meant giving them drugs, sending them out into the world, and hoping they'd take the drugs (that they mostly didn't like taking, so they'd throw the drugs away as soon as they walked out the door). You can see the results on street corners in most major cities. Some of the high-functioning lunatics are, well, making news.

Now? I'm expecting a new call for "psychiatric support" from the current generation of medical progressives. Instead of "asylum," it'll be something like "active mental health intervention facility."


Yes, I get it. Gun massacres are the fault of progressives.

You've really brought a lot to the table. Forgot that your boy Reagan and his cronies defunded all of our mental health programs? Or is he officially a progressive to you freaks now?
 
2012-07-23 11:47:54 AM  

Moosecakes: If you're referring to that crap about the tea party guy


I'm referring to any time anybody gets shot anywhere. The painting of the shooter as a RWNJ and calls for gun control begin immediately. But somebody prematurely accuses a shooter of being a liberal and suddenly it's "Now, now, let's not jump to any conclusions." It is farking hilarious.
 
2012-07-23 11:48:56 AM  

cirby: In the 1960s and 1970s, "progressives" decided that the asylums they'd built were a bad idea, so they started "mainstreaming" the crazy people.


Yeah, "Progressives" did that...

Like noted "Progressive" icon Ronald Reagan.

Although, it's funny because today he might fit that description.
 
2012-07-23 11:50:39 AM  

umad: I'm referring to any time anybody gets shot anywhere. The painting of the shooter as a RWNJ and calls for gun control begin immediately. But somebody prematurely accuses a shooter of being a liberal and suddenly it's "Now, now, let's not jump to any conclusions." It is farking hilarious.


Everyone who uses shiat like this to push a political agenda is an asshole. Right, left, pro-gun, anti-gun...all assholes.
 
2012-07-23 11:51:07 AM  

Tat'dGreaser: Al_Ed: I say we need more laws restricting explosives!

Someone just needs to make breaking the law, against the law.


That's just crazy talk!
 
2012-07-23 11:52:17 AM  
HotWIngConspiracy:
Yes, I get it. Gun massacres are the fault of progressives.

That thing that just flew over your head? That was the point.
 
2012-07-23 11:52:20 AM  
I just can't believe John Holmes would do something like this.
 
2012-07-23 11:53:44 AM  

Dynascape: Maybe... if you encased the rocks in a truck bomb....

There are other ways of mass murder other than guns. People seem to forget that. Like if we eliminate guns people wont.. say.. hijack airplanes with boxcutters. Or build pipe bombs.



Yeah that would be horrible, to half the murder rate with smart gun control laws. Because you can use other things as weapons too. Sounds legit. All because you think the 2nd Amendment protects your love of a hobby.
 
2012-07-23 11:53:44 AM  

cirby: HotWIngConspiracy:
Yes, I get it. Gun massacres are the fault of progressives.

That thing that just flew over your head? That was the point.


Oh please, expand on this point.
 
2012-07-23 11:55:16 AM  

Tat'dGreaser: salvador.hardin: Notice that of those three options we have mountains of restrictions and regulations in place in our attempts to prevent people from exercising two of them.

Yet he still found a way to get explosives. Despite them being illegal. It's almost as if people who want to break the law will actually break the law.


So we shouldn't have laws if we know people are going to break them? That doesn't even make sense.

Gun rights are important, and they shouldn't be restricted lightly, but the idea that there are zero consequences to allowing unrestricted access to items with exceptional lethal capabilities is just patently ridiculous. The pursuit of killing any conversation on gun violence before it begins leads you folks into reacting with terribly illogical statements. The right to own firearms does not change the reality of the situation.
 
2012-07-23 11:58:34 AM  

Tat'dGreaser: Al_Ed: I say we need more laws restricting explosives!

Someone just needs to make breaking the law, against the law.


STFU fascist.
 
2012-07-23 11:58:59 AM  
"You know what really gets me, as a Christian, is to see the ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs, and then some senseless crazy act of a derelict takes place." - Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas)

Why do I find this funny as hell?
 
2012-07-23 12:03:02 PM  

salvador.hardin: So we shouldn't have laws if we know people are going to break them? That doesn't even make sense.

Gun rights are important, and they shouldn't be restricted lightly, but the idea that there are zero consequences to allowing unrestricted access to items with exceptional lethal capabilities is just patently ridiculous. The pursuit of killing any conversation on gun violence before it begins leads you folks into reacting with terribly illogical statements. The right to own firearms does not change the reality of the situation.


There are gun laws though. You can't own them if you're a felon or a domestic abuser. The problem is all most gun laws do is trample on the rights of law-abiding people. They do little to stop illegal activities. You ban all guns great, now you have to find every single one of them and destroy them. Not too mention destroy every machine that could possibly make them.

Instead of going after an inanimate object, why don't we go after WHY people commit these acts?
 
2012-07-23 12:05:01 PM  

Tat'dGreaser: Al_Ed: I say we need more laws restricting explosives!

Someone just needs to make breaking the law, against the law.


Then we'd get a stack overflow error and crash the country.
 
2012-07-23 12:06:27 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Fact: Crazy motherfarkers are allowed to own arsenals.

Fact: Gun owners are fine with massacres as long as they can have their guns.


Do you ever get tired of being wrong? It is not legal for mentally ill individuals to purchase firearms. As a gunowner who knows many other gun owners, I do not know anyone who is fine with massacres. I can smell your filthy canuter from here
 
2012-07-23 12:06:59 PM  
UPDATE 2: The Daily Mail suspects Occupy Wall Street:

one private investigator has said that Holmes may have been part of Occupy Wall Street's most violent faction Occupy Black Bloc.

Bill Warner told how the Batman movie portrays the OWS crowd in a negative vein, leading him to believe that may have been a cause behind gunman's rage


Aside from the small fact that it was a midnight premiere and nobody had actually seen the movie yet.
 
2012-07-23 12:09:02 PM  

Dynascape: Gun control is pointless. Nobody is going to really worry about it, because most Americans know that guns are only a tool.

If you ban guns, then we'll see more stabbings. Ban knives? more Rock-throwing massacres.

Machetes were used in the Rwandan Genocide... definitely not a gun.


I'm not really a "ban all guns" guy, but I've always found this argument really silly.

Aside from hacks to Team Fortress and Conan movies, has there ever been a reported case of a single person, acting alone, killing 70 people (and injuring countless others) with any kind of bladed hand weapon?

Has there ever been a case of a "drive-by knifing" where someone throws a bunch of cutlery out of the speeding window of a car at an opposing gang member and some elderly person or kid who is sleeping inside of a house gets impaled?
 
2012-07-23 12:15:17 PM  

snowshovel: Dynascape: Gun control is pointless. Nobody is going to really worry about it, because most Americans know that guns are only a tool.

If you ban guns, then we'll see more stabbings. Ban knives? more Rock-throwing massacres.

Machetes were used in the Rwandan Genocide... definitely not a gun.

I'm not really a "ban all guns" guy, but I've always found this argument really silly.

Aside from hacks to Team Fortress and Conan movies, has there ever been a reported case of a single person, acting alone, killing 70 people (and injuring countless others) with any kind of bladed hand weapon?

Has there ever been a case of a "drive-by knifing" where someone throws a bunch of cutlery out of the speeding window of a car at an opposing gang member and some elderly person or kid who is sleeping inside of a house gets impaled?


No, but there are plenty of cases of people running people down with their cars.

Should cars be illegal? especially those big-ass SuperDuties.

Who needs a Superduty? They could run over 30 or 40 gypsies AT ONCE. You never know.
 
2012-07-23 12:17:38 PM  
What a bunch of idiots! Everyone knows that Holmes did it because his mother would never buy him a sled.
 
2012-07-23 12:17:42 PM  
I want to know how the AP wire stories within mere hours (earliest Friday AM) were stating Holmes was using a drum magazine, when the drum magazine was still in his apartment the police wouldn't get into for another day.

Forget the "reports" it was in his car. Or that he was using the drum. The drum magazine was in his apartment.

How did AP know this immediately following the shooting?
 
2012-07-23 12:18:41 PM  

Prank Monkey: HotWingConspiracy: Fact: Crazy motherfarkers are allowed to own arsenals.

Fact: Gun owners are fine with massacres as long as they can have their guns.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong? It is not legal for mentally ill individuals to purchase firearms. As a gunowner who knows many other gun owners, I do not know anyone who is fine with massacres. I can smell your filthy canuter from here


Was Jim Holmes mentally ill? He legally purchased his guns, but he did something that certainly did not appear to be sane. Perhaps we should require a psych evaluation prior to purchasing guns.

I have a feeling some gun nuts might not like that.
 
2012-07-23 12:21:33 PM  

Tat'dGreaser: salvador.hardin: So we shouldn't have laws if we know people are going to break them? That doesn't even make sense.

Gun rights are important, and they shouldn't be restricted lightly, but the idea that there are zero consequences to allowing unrestricted access to items with exceptional lethal capabilities is just patently ridiculous. The pursuit of killing any conversation on gun violence before it begins leads you folks into reacting with terribly illogical statements. The right to own firearms does not change the reality of the situation.

There are gun laws though. You can't own them if you're a felon or a domestic abuser. The problem is all most gun laws do is trample on the rights of law-abiding people. They do little to stop illegal activities. You ban all guns great, now you have to find every single one of them and destroy them. Not too mention destroy every machine that could possibly make them.

Instead of going after an inanimate object, why don't we go after WHY people commit these acts?


I don't understand. Are felons and domestic abusers law-abiding people, or are you talking about different gun laws? And how did we jump to banning all guns? How is recognizing that a weapon designed to increase the ability of an individual to kill and injure others actually does increase the ability of an individual to kill and inure others equate to destroying every machine that can manufacture guns.

Instead of looking for a sensible way to track and regulate the lawful transactions of lethal objects you want to 1) discover why people commit acts of mass violence (a phenomenon that has been with us sense before we could write) and presumably 2) intervene when we discover individuals with that propensity. How is that less invasive of individual liberty than waiting periods, requiring open carry, or tracking purchase and ownership?
 
2012-07-23 12:22:47 PM  

Dynascape: snowshovel: Dynascape: Gun control is pointless. Nobody is going to really worry about it, because most Americans know that guns are only a tool.

If you ban guns, then we'll see more stabbings. Ban knives? more Rock-throwing massacres.

Machetes were used in the Rwandan Genocide... definitely not a gun.

I'm not really a "ban all guns" guy, but I've always found this argument really silly.

Aside from hacks to Team Fortress and Conan movies, has there ever been a reported case of a single person, acting alone, killing 70 people (and injuring countless others) with any kind of bladed hand weapon?

Has there ever been a case of a "drive-by knifing" where someone throws a bunch of cutlery out of the speeding window of a car at an opposing gang member and some elderly person or kid who is sleeping inside of a house gets impaled?

No, but there are plenty of cases of people running people down with their cars.

Should cars be illegal? especially those big-ass SuperDuties.

Who needs a Superduty? They could run over 30 or 40 gypsies AT ONCE. You never know.


Vehicles ownership and use are heavily regulated.
 
2012-07-23 12:28:49 PM  

ChimpMitten: Prank Monkey: HotWingConspiracy: Fact: Crazy motherfarkers are allowed to own arsenals.

Fact: Gun owners are fine with massacres as long as they can have their guns.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong? It is not legal for mentally ill individuals to purchase firearms. As a gunowner who knows many other gun owners, I do not know anyone who is fine with massacres. I can smell your filthy canuter from here

Was Jim Holmes mentally ill? He legally purchased his guns, but he did something that certainly did not appear to be sane. Perhaps we should require a psych evaluation prior to purchasing guns.

I have a feeling some gun nuts might not like that.


The problem with requiring a psych evaluation in order to purchase a gun isn't a bad idea at all. It's something I would support as long as it could be done in a timely manner like the current background check is done. I'm just not sure that is possible. I work with a guy who sells guns on the weekends. He said they have extensive training on who they can and cannot sell guns to. I'm not sure if this is a federal or state regulation or just that particular gun stores policy. If it's not a federal law than maybe it should be.
 
2012-07-23 12:29:04 PM  
Human beings are resourceful and clever; sometimes especially the mad ones. If a lunatic, otherwise not disabled, is driven to commit murder and mayhem on a large scale, he can do it in a number of ways that don't involve gunpowder. However, to my knowledge, for a typical citizen to protect himself and his family from the immediate threat of lethal attack there still is no better tool than a firearm. That is why I would oppose a "crackdown" on legal gun ownership as a result of outrages such as this one. It will only further embolden and empower the evil and the crazy without making the average citizen any safer. Some of the most violent places in the country are those with the strictest gun controls.
 
2012-07-23 12:38:08 PM  

The Homer Tax: Yeah, "Progressives" did that...

Like noted "Progressive" icon Ronald Reagan.

Although, it's funny because today he might fit that description.


He was in favor of the Earned Income Tax Credit, which pretty much makes him a libtard.
 
2012-07-23 12:41:00 PM  

offmymeds: Ex-FBI profiler Clint Van Zandt on MSNBC says Holmes could be a "dark, Trekkie-like person."

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 560x695]


www.startrekguide.dk
 
rka
2012-07-23 12:41:40 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: HotWingConspiracy: Fact: Crazy motherfarkers are allowed to own arsenals.

Fact: Gun owners are fine with massacres as long as they can have their guns.

"Maybe I'm a dreamer, but I wish mental health care were as easy to get as, say, a gun."
Andy Borowitz (@BorowitzReport)


Other than making every person wanting to own a gun take a full-on psych profile I'm not sure what this case has to do with Mental Health Care.

This guy was a PhD candidate surrounded on a daily basis by medical professionals and none of them raised any flags. Although he didn't interact with his neighbors by all accounts he was a social person even having a few beers with friends the night before. None of them raised any flags.

On what basis do you suddenly start grabbing otherwise normal people off the street and giving them to mental health evals?
 
2012-07-23 12:44:11 PM  
Coming soon! My very helpful "The Practical Jack-off Guide for Journalists"
 
2012-07-23 12:54:18 PM  

KiplingKat872: Speaking as a comic book fan 26 years running and as someone who is fully aware of the whole "Seduction of the Innocent" thing and agrees that this was a total whackjob, I do think it is time that the big publishing houses, especially Marvel, look at how they have abandoned heroic ideals in favor of shock and awe, moral ambiguity, and romanticized evil. JMS made a very blatant indictment against the loss of heroism in comic books a few years ago in Thor. I don't think we need Congressional hearings, but I do think before writers and artists pick up the pen/pencils, they should take a minute to think about what they are saying beyond, "This will be so shocking and cool and universe altering they'll *have* to buy it!"

So I think it will be interesting to see if the superhero comic book landscape changes after this.


You know, they tried this a few years ago with the Civil War Saga. Made sense, too: Superheroes register as living WMDs, the superheroes factionalize because they didn't want to abide by the requirement of surrendering secret identities. Peter Parker comes out as Spider-Man, Aunt May gets shot in a mistaken hit, then Marvel ruins the entire book after Pete makes a deal with the devil. In short, it sucked. Captain American made a popular quote about freedoms and the right to stand up for your principles, but then surrenders when he realizes he's part of the problem, not the solution, then later gets shot on the steps of a court building. Granted they followed up with the series where a bunch of heroes were Skrulls, but it didn't make the ending of what could have been an interesting idea any better. It was in many ways timely with 9/11 and the Patriot Act, but nevertheless failed in many ways because it made superheroes seem more human. I want to believe a man in an iron suit can fly and protect the world, not that he's going to play politician and goat fark all of his allies out of some sense of marginal responsibility.

Any time comics get political it sucks. Yes, at times it's necessary for the people to see a cover where Captain America beats the fark out of Hitler, but overall comics by their very nature are escapism. JMS may have called out heroism in Thor, but the Asgardian didn't hesitate to beat the ever-loving fark out of someone who steps on his honor. JMS tried to do the same thing with Superman's walk across America book, and it sucked, too. The Man of Steel loses his appeal when he's doing all Boy Scout stuff and not beating the fark out of Darkseid. It's those poignant moments, like when he saves the girl from jumping off a building in the All-Star series, because it goes back to the "every life matters" philosophy. Plus, if I recall Alex Ross' "Peace on Earth" book, he failed miserably when it came to fixing the ills of the world. Superheroes are there to inspire, not work as deus ex machina for our problems.

Every. Single. Time. something like this happens, the immediate call-to-arms is for the producers of content to change their content. The actions of a few (which have been going on in massacres like this long before TV, comic books or the Internet existed) drive us all to milquetoast extremes in order to protect the poor, innocent children. If that's the case, then terrorism is the correct term.

Perhaps what needs to happen is for those in control of the legal sale of handguns and ammo to figure out why 7,000 rounds of ammunition can be sold legally to an individual, rather than why a Batman movie has too much violence in it. Classic bait and switch tactics, and people keep falling for it all the time.
 
2012-07-23 12:55:39 PM  

Prank Monkey: ChimpMitten: Prank Monkey: HotWingConspiracy: Fact: Crazy motherfarkers are allowed to own arsenals.

Fact: Gun owners are fine with massacres as long as they can have their guns.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong? It is not legal for mentally ill individuals to purchase firearms. As a gunowner who knows many other gun owners, I do not know anyone who is fine with massacres. I can smell your filthy canuter from here

Was Jim Holmes mentally ill? He legally purchased his guns, but he did something that certainly did not appear to be sane. Perhaps we should require a psych evaluation prior to purchasing guns.

I have a feeling some gun nuts might not like that.

The problem with requiring a psych evaluation in order to purchase a gun isn't a bad idea at all. It's something I would support as long as it could be done in a timely manner like the current background check is done. I'm just not sure that is possible.


So you're pretty much fine with massacres, so long as you can keep your guns.
 
2012-07-23 12:56:39 PM  

rka: Although he didn't interact with his neighbors


This one always bothers me. Who the fark wants to talk to their neighbors? I mean, I can understand a certain minimum interaction from courtesy, but beyond that, what are your neighbors? They're not the people you've kept in touch with through out your life who you've chosen to care about, they're not family members, they're not even your coworkers with a shared burden to gripe about. They're a bunch of strangers you are forced to live near. Other than a certain likelihood of economic parity, you don't necessarily have more in common with them than any random stranger on the street. Why do people seem to expect you'd talk to someone just because you're physically near them?

Shiat. If I ever go on a kill-crazy rampage, I'm sure my neighbors will say "Yeah, he was always quiet, kept to himself. Sometimes we'd see him on his porch, smoking and reading a book. He'd nod when we walked by, but mostly just read his book. I knew, because he didn't loudly abuse his kids or pull the fire alarm or climb up the balcony when his girlfriend locked him out, that he secretly was tanning clown hides in his guest bedroom. It's always the quiet ones..."
 
2012-07-23 12:56:46 PM  

rka: On what basis do you suddenly start grabbing otherwise normal people off the street and giving them to mental health evals?


When they start stockpiling arms.
 
2012-07-23 12:59:00 PM  
As opposed to our media.
 
2012-07-23 01:01:51 PM  
The Aurora shooter doesn't use Facebook -- this indicates he is mentally ill

The mystery of James Holmes' missing Facebook account

i.imgur.com
 
2012-07-23 01:03:00 PM  
FTFA: UPDATE 1: On CNN, profiler Pat Brown blames violent video games. UPDATE: Watch the video!

teenage psychopaths get inspired by [video games] and want to make it real.


Dear god I am so sick of this argument. I spent nearly an hour last night trying to explain how this doesn't work to someone, and how playing video games doesn't turn someone into a killer. But no, it CAN'T be that violent people are drawn to violent games (or violent movies...or violent porn...etc.) It MUST be the games that made them do it, because they saw a 60 Minutes report about Doom, the Hot Coffee mod, and Tentacle Rape Kitty Boo Boo GO! (A game not even available in the US.)

It's like people take a tragedy and try to use it to confirm what they already...

Wait a second....

Oh....
 
2012-07-23 01:04:02 PM  

apachevoyeur: STOCK PHOTO OBSERVATION (AKA Thread Jack)

I noticed one of these stock photos used above with a "Welcome to Fark" overlay. Then I found this whole set of stock photos, individually (of course), across a variety of anti-bullying blogs.

[www.hhdev.psu.edu image 425x282]
[www.mymcpl.org image 423x282]
[angercoach.com image 400x267]
[world.edu image 650x366]

First observation: They all take turns being bullies



The black chick never gets bullied. Not sure if PSA is racist or avoiding hate crime.
 
2012-07-23 01:10:55 PM  

mikewadestr: What a bunch of idiots! Everyone knows that Holmes did it because his mother would never buy him a sled Pepsi.


FIFY
 
2012-07-23 01:11:05 PM  

RoyBatty: The Aurora shooter doesn't use Facebook -- this indicates he is mentally ill

The mystery of James Holmes' missing Facebook account

[i.imgur.com image 616x568]


I like that the "theory" states that you're crazy if you use the internet too much or too little.
 
2012-07-23 01:13:30 PM  

CornerPocket: Human beings are resourceful and clever; sometimes especially the mad ones. If a lunatic, otherwise not disabled, is driven to commit murder and mayhem on a large scale, he can do it in a number of ways that don't involve gunpowder. However, to my knowledge, for a typical citizen to protect himself and his family from the immediate threat of lethal attack there still is no better tool than a firearm. That is why I would oppose a "crackdown" on legal gun ownership as a result of outrages such as this one. It will only further embolden and empower the evil and the crazy without making the average citizen any safer. Some of the most violent places in the country are those with the strictest gun controls.


That is the first reasonable statement of that position I have seen in a long time.

A couple of counterpoints
1) A negative conclusion should not be drawn from the fact that places with strict gun control laws have lots of gun violence. First of all, the violence is often the reason for the laws. Laws don't magically fix problems, they just give government an avenue for managing them. The proper measure would be, if all other factors zero out, has gun violence decreased in those areas since the introduction of those measures.

Additionally, these tend to be places where gun ownership is common, so the same negative conclusion could be drawn that citizen armament has little or no effect on the level of gun violence (but again only after extraneous factors are accounted for).

More relevant to the situation at hand, armed and trained individual soldiers at Fort Hood weren't able to stop the shooter there. It was only when an organized force arrived on the scene that the shooter was taken down.

Finally, the high population of urban areas increases the availability of bystander targets, and the likelihood of encounters between armed opponents. I do think this highlights one problem with the one size fits all approach of unrestricted ownership (or conversely one size fits all gun control). What works for low crime, low popultation rural areas is not going to work for high crime, high population urban areas. These are distinctly different populations with different security needs.

2) Some humans are resourceful and clever, some aren't. Guns are user-friendly and efficient at the job they are designed to do. By giving everyone unrestricted access to them, we increase the availability of easy to use lethal force to the small percentage of insane people.

If we have a population of nutjobs at X. Some people in X are going to be incapable of using even a gun (yeah). The rest of this group are population Y. Some of population Y are intelligent enough to use other means effectively, but many are not. We will call this smart group population Z. The prime example of this is the Times Square Bomber. He was crazy and determined to kill people, but he was a complete incompetent. The bomb he attempted to create stood a much greater chance of going off accidentally than it did going off intentionally. It was still dangerous, and we were fortunate to have prompt and competent police intervention following rapid civilian alert. Imagine if the same guy had jumped out of his van in body armor with an AR-15 and a hundred round clip. Even an incompetent can point the business end in the right direction and pull a trigger. He could have racked up a significant kill count rather than zero.

There is also more potential for law enforcement intervening if a person is forced to use means other than guns, or forced to obtain guns by illegal means. So population Z has to be lucky.

Gun control laws allow us to reduce our pool of potential massacre instigators that will be successful from X to Z. We can also decrease the likelihood of successful massacre and increase our likelihood at intervening by investing in our investigative capabilities.

Right now, members of population Z that are incapable of obtaining bomb making materials because of materials tracking (or because they fear using them in person) can go buy an AR 15 with a 100 round clip and legally carry it to the very entrance of the theater.

There's not an easy fix, and there's not a total or comprehensive fix. Crazy people have been killing others since the beginning of time (well before guns). However, unless we want to just live with these sorts of things and hope the odds are in our favor (which is an entirely viable option given the number of incidents we've had so far) gun control has to have a part in the discussion. Guns are only going to get more deadly with time, and no one is going to cure Crazy. If we just refuse to make any attempt at regulating lethality, there will be an increase in massacres, and we will probably have a problem living with it.

/I know, I know, tldr/ welcometofark.jpg/ gungrabber/ lib lib lib
 
2012-07-23 01:19:34 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Prank Monkey: ChimpMitten: Prank Monkey: HotWingConspiracy: Fact: Crazy motherfarkers are allowed to own arsenals.

Fact: Gun owners are fine with massacres as long as they can have their guns.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong? It is not legal for mentally ill individuals to purchase firearms. As a gunowner who knows many other gun owners, I do not know anyone who is fine with massacres. I can smell your filthy canuter from here

Was Jim Holmes mentally ill? He legally purchased his guns, but he did something that certainly did not appear to be sane. Perhaps we should require a psych evaluation prior to purchasing guns.

I have a feeling some gun nuts might not like that.

The problem with requiring a psych evaluation in order to purchase a gun isn't a bad idea at all. It's something I would support as long as it could be done in a timely manner like the current background check is done. I'm just not sure that is possible.

So you're pretty much fine with massacres, so long as you can keep your guns.


How did you get that from my post? I understand that you don't like guns and believe that only the government should have them. Isn't it great that the majority of the country, our founding fathers, and the Supreme Court disagree with you?
 
2012-07-23 01:25:05 PM  

Prank Monkey: HotWingConspiracy: Prank Monkey: ChimpMitten: Prank Monkey: HotWingConspiracy: Fact: Crazy motherfarkers are allowed to own arsenals.

Fact: Gun owners are fine with massacres as long as they can have their guns.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong? It is not legal for mentally ill individuals to purchase firearms. As a gunowner who knows many other gun owners, I do not know anyone who is fine with massacres. I can smell your filthy canuter from here

Was Jim Holmes mentally ill? He legally purchased his guns, but he did something that certainly did not appear to be sane. Perhaps we should require a psych evaluation prior to purchasing guns.

I have a feeling some gun nuts might not like that.

The problem with requiring a psych evaluation in order to purchase a gun isn't a bad idea at all. It's something I would support as long as it could be done in a timely manner like the current background check is done. I'm just not sure that is possible.

So you're pretty much fine with massacres, so long as you can keep your guns.

How did you get that from my post?


Because you posited the only thing that can be done about it won't be possible. So you're completely fine with status quo, which is now a gun massacre every few months.

I understand that you don't like guns and believe that only the government should have them.

I never said that, look at how dumb you are.
 
2012-07-23 01:32:22 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: I like that the "theory" states that you're crazy if you use the internet too much or too little.


Yeah, the best psych theories are like that, allows the psych to diagnose whatever s/he pleases.

I am certainly mentally ill, along with many farkers....
 
2012-07-23 01:43:46 PM  

NutWrench: Holmes is a highly functional sociopath. They're difficult to spot for several reasons.
Not all crazy people are pants-on-head wackaloons.


That's what I figured, too. He seemed too organized to be schizophrenic. Not that I'm a psychologist or anything. Just going by what I've researched on the internet.

umad: I'm referring to any time anybody gets shot anywhere. The painting of the shooter as a RWNJ and calls for gun control begin immediately. But somebody prematurely accuses a shooter of being a liberal and suddenly it's "Now, now, let's not jump to any conclusions." It is farking hilarious.


Don't forget the extreme right wingers who tend to automatically assume it's a Muslim terrorist. I don't think they did in this case, but there have been other cases where it was "OMG MOOSLIMS".

JinxofSpades: Dear god I am so sick of this argument. I spent nearly an hour last night trying to explain how this doesn't work to someone, and how playing video games doesn't turn someone into a killer. But no, it CAN'T be that violent people are drawn to violent games (or violent movies...or violent porn...etc.) It MUST be the games that made them do it, because they saw a 60 Minutes report about Doom, the Hot Coffee mod, and Tentacle Rape Kitty Boo Boo GO! (A game not even available in the US.)

It's like people take a tragedy and try to use it to confirm what they already...

Wait a second....

Oh....


I'm actually glad that he didn't have much of an online presence, because the media can't blame it on violent video games this time. Though I'm sure they'll find something about him to blame it on.
 
2012-07-23 01:53:41 PM  

salvador.hardin: Dynascape: snowshovel: Dynascape: Gun control is pointless. Nobody is going to really worry about it, because most Americans know that guns are only a tool.

If you ban guns, then we'll see more stabbings. Ban knives? more Rock-throwing massacres.

Machetes were used in the Rwandan Genocide... definitely not a gun.

I'm not really a "ban all guns" guy, but I've always found this argument really silly.

Aside from hacks to Team Fortress and Conan movies, has there ever been a reported case of a single person, acting alone, killing 70 people (and injuring countless others) with any kind of bladed hand weapon?

Has there ever been a case of a "drive-by knifing" where someone throws a bunch of cutlery out of the speeding window of a car at an opposing gang member and some elderly person or kid who is sleeping inside of a house gets impaled?

No, but there are plenty of cases of people running people down with their cars.

Should cars be illegal? especially those big-ass SuperDuties.

Who needs a Superduty? They could run over 30 or 40 gypsies AT ONCE. You never know.

Vehicles ownership and use are heavily regulated.


Uhh, no not really. You can buy a vehicle if you are the world's worst murderer in history. Pick a Serial Killer, and they can legally purchase and own a car even from inside a jail cell.

Now operating it on a State or Federal highway is regulated, but if you had it towed to a mall parking lot, that would be private property and then go all GTA cause you are not breaking any Motor Vehicle Codes.

There are not limitations for transferring ownership to any individual.

And to the point above about drive by knifings, that brings to light the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, that named specifically bayonets. Banning a bayonet lug (little metal tab that a bayonet could be connected to) as a feature of a weapon did nothing and served no purpose, so that POS legislation was about as brainless as the jackbooted thug Emanual that got it pushed through.

If you want to try and make gun control legislation, at least try and not make it laughable. Clinton was just as mentally defective as Holmes for thinking this that type of legislation would have any common good for citizens. It doesn't work. Try working from the inside out and not let your agency responsible for regulating and enforcing gun laws, allow illegal gun sales to go through. That would be a good start.
 
Displayed 50 of 126 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report